HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC NOMENCLATURE CHANGE? NOMENCLATURAL CHALLENGES WITH THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM

Several driving forces exist with regard for the need for consideration of nomenclatural changes. Among these are improvements in hydrostratigraphic nomenclatural guidelines, existing naming schemes that are found to be unclear once implemented, or improvements in our understanding of a region’s hydrogeology as more data are collected.

The widely accepted nomenclatural scheme for the Floridan aquifer system uses both positional (Upper and Lower) and numeric terms (I, II, III…), which are not recommended by some current guidelines. Inconsistent names proposed for localized units have resulted in some confusion. Additionally, as investigations for alternative water supplies look deeper into the Floridan aquifer system, the use of a single name for the Lower Floridan aquifers is problematic. One may interpret that a different Lower Floridan aquifer exists below the laterally distinguishable middle confining units separating the Upper and Lower Floridan aquifers.

Opportunities exist to make improvements to the existing hydrostratigraphic nomenclature. Any proposed changes to the Floridan aquifer system or other hydrostratigraphic name should go through a defined process and careful scrutiny to make certain the change is essential, an improvement, and is adhering to guidelines accepted by the geoscience community at large.

We support that defining hydrostratigraphic nomenclature procedures, implementing the changes resulting from the new guidelines, and making certain the changes are improvements should be the responsibility of a hydrostratigraphic nomenclature commission or series of networked commissions.